Neutral Science?

Originally posted by Palynka
Just death and taxes. 🙄

Benjamin Franklin? Right?

Originally posted by Palynka
I agree completely, I would just replace Christian/non-Christian with theist/"atheist-agnostic. But note that the latter also have a solid foundation for knowledge.

Their foundation for knowledge is evidence and therefore whenever there is the possibility of new evidence arising (no matter how improbable) then there can be no claim for absolute truth, ju ...[text shortened]... TheSkipper said he was a Christian, I believe. I don't know if you were aware of that Colleti.

I don't agree that "Christian" and be replace by "theist." The existence of a supreme being does not entail that that being is knowable or communicative. The God of Christianity is the God of knowledge and wisdom.

Our epistemologies disagree.

Your idea of knowledge is something that evolves with time. We never have real knowledge, just an approximation of it - a shadow of it. And this knowledge evolves, hopefully becoming clearer as more evidence is observed. It is inductive.

My epistemology starts with an omniscient God, and his revelation to man. The foundation of this knowledge is propositional. The increase of the knowledge is deductive.

However, I think if I did not believe in the God of Christianity, I'd agree with your idea of knowledge.

Originally posted by echecero
Precisely. The absolute truth must exist. The ability to know it, however, seems impossible. Just as we can never truly know if we are in a virtual reality ala Matrix even if we can predict everything about our world, we can never know if we know everything, or only a small part.

What you guys are agreeing about all comes under the heading of "You can't disprove a negative" ,well ok

You cannot disprove Muffy done it , God done it little greenmen done it, or , for that matter anything or nothing done it, But what you can do is define what it is and how it works and THAT is not only possible its exactly what science endeavors to do.

In other words : Prove the known and leave the unknowable to religion and philosophy which are better at speculation.

Not even God can prove that there wasn't something that created Him either and speculations about absolute truth are worthless and only obstruct the study the mathematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe, as is their intent.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What you guys are agreeing about all comes under the heading of "You can't disprove a negative" ,well ok

You cannot disprove Muffy done it , God done it little greenmen done it, or , for that matter anything or nothing done it, But what you can do is define what it is and how it works and THAT is not only possible its exact ...[text shortened]... ematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe, as is their intent.

You are like a bacteria in a drop of water, thinking that the drop of water is the only 'real world' because the drop of water is the only thing you can explain.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the mathematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe

Vesica pisces?

Originally posted by frogstomp
What you guys are agreeing about all comes under the heading of "You can't disprove a negative" ,well ok

You cannot disprove Muffy done it , God done it little greenmen done it, or , for that matter anything or nothing done it, But what you can do is define what it is and how it works and THAT is not only possible its exact ...[text shortened]... ematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe, as is their intent.

Actually, I believe it's more similar to "You can't absolutely prove a theory, you can only disprove it".

If it survives disproval tests, then we accept it as valid. But tests based on evidence are fundamentally to see if the theory is disproven, more than to "prove" it in an absolutist sense of the word.

If there is nothing to disprove something with (Muffy done it), then it is not considered to have passed the disproval tests, leading to its non-acceptance as valid.

This is how I view as the ideal posture for scientists, at least.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What you guys are agreeing about all comes under the heading of "You can't disprove a negative" ,well ok

You cannot disprove Muffy done it , God done it little greenmen done it, or , for that matter anything or nothing done it, But what you can do is define what it is and how it works and THAT is not only possible its exact ...[text shortened]... ematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe, as is their intent.

In other words : Prove the known and leave the unknowable to religion and philosophy which are better at speculation.

Science does not "prove the known." It can only speculate about cause and effect. But the answers are formally fallacious as they are based on asserting the consequence.

Not even God can prove that there wasn't something that created Him either and speculations about absolute truth are worthless and only obstruct the study the mathematical relationships that govern all real things in this universe, as is their intent.

This is very interesting and reveals much.

First, your definition of god is not God. Your idea of god in not omniscient because there are things he can not know (if he was created). The standard characteristics of God are omniscient and omnipotent.

Second - your belief (faithfully held) that the real things are governed by mathematical relationship is very interesting. For you have made mathematical relationships (empirical theories which can only approximate reality) into laws that govern reality. Mathematics is the god you have made up, attributing your god with the omniscience you deny others.

Your complaint that " speculations about absolute truth are worthless" only serve to cover your presuppositions. Your "faith" in science and mathematics is clear. It's okay to have faith as long as one recognizes what they have faith in, and does not pretend they have no religion.

Originally posted by Palynka

This is how I view as the ideal posture for scientists, at least.

Makes me thing of that picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Makes me thing of that picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue.

🙂

That picture humanizes him, which actually relates to my post. (boring comment, I know)

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, I believe it's more similar to "You can't absolutely prove a theory, you can only disprove it".

If it survives disproval tests, then we accept it as valid. But tests based on evidence are fundamentally to see if the theory is disproven, more than to "prove" it in an absolutist sense of the word.

If there is nothing to disprove something ...[text shortened]... ts non-acceptance as valid.

This is how I view as the ideal posture for scientists, at least.

this is an example of a theory:
"You can't absolutely prove a theory, you can only disprove it"

That is an example of a negative you can't disprove

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Vesica pisces?

Sometimes I wish I could speak bogmanese.

Originally posted by Coletti

[b]In other words : Prove the known and leave the unknowable to religion and philosophy which are better at speculation.

Science does not "prove the known." It can only speculate about cause and effect. But the answers are formally fallacious as they are based on asserting the consequence.

[quote]Not even God can prove h as long as one recognizes what they have faith in, and does not pretend they have no religion.[/b]

Not so ... and you're just being silly.

You can't seem to distinguish between Theoretical Physic and a god concept. and obviously have little knowlege formal logic which you repeatedly misuse in your posts.

hence: Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Now while that might apply to Intelligent Design arguments ..it does NOT apply to mathematical proofs or the physics that they can and do describe.

It also applies to your absurd conclusion that mathematics is my god

edit hate [bold]

Originally posted by Coletti

[b]In other words : Prove the known and leave the unknowable to religion and philosophy which are better at speculation.

Science does not "prove the known." It can only speculate about cause and effect. But the answers are formally fallacious as they are based on asserting the consequence.

[quote]Not even God can prove ...[text shortened]... h as long as one recognizes what they have faith in, and does not pretend they have no religion.

So how do we know god is omnipotent? someone maybe tell you?
Oh, I forgot, you read it in the bible. Well THAT must make it so.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Not so ... and you're just being silly.

You can't seem to distinguish between Theoretical Physic and a god concept. and obviously have little knowlege formal logic which you repeatedly misuse in your posts.

hence: Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Now while that might appl ...[text shortened]... lso applies to your absurd conclusion that mathematics is my god

edit hate [bold]

Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

..it does NOT apply to mathematical proofs or the physics that they can and do describe.

It certainly do if you think mathematic equations reality.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is the scientific method in a nutshell. Every time I see x, then y follows. Therefore y is caused by x. And so we describe it with empirical equation Q(x) = y. Once you start saying that science has proven Q(x)=y, then you have made science a god.

" Bertrand Russell:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

Popper:

First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it.... [W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses.... [I]n science there is no "knowledge" in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.... Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton’s, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.... Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement;... our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;... it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think he is saying that the Christian is epistemologically justified in claiming to have a source of absolute truth - since the Christian world view is based on the source of absolute truth - the one and only omnipotent and omniscient God - aka the Almighty. How do we know? The Almighty gives that knowledge.

But the non-Christian has no epistemologic ...[text shortened]... a solid justification for knowing anything is a matter of epistemology - and that is the issue.

But the non-Christian has no epistemological justification for knowing anything. He may claim to know things, but he can not give a sound basis for that knowledge.

wow, where to begin....haven't you ever heard of fallibilism? knowledge and epistemic justification need not entail certainty -- they may be based on defeasible evidence. your claims here are incredibly bold to a glaring fault. if you are going to play the certainty principle card, then everyone's knowledge is vulnerable, even your own (probably especially your own since you have absolutely no demonstrable evidence for even your most fundamental premise, namely that the bible is the word of the living god; can you not see how ironic your stance really is?).

your remarks remind me of something that vistesd posted about The Matrix not too long ago. vistesd said (i'm paraphrasing since i can't remember which thread it was) that it is much easier to apply the philosophical implications of The Matrix to the belief systems of others, rather than to one's own belief system. your post demonstrates vistesd's general point perfectly.